This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My own personal experience is that scientists and people with genuine expertise in a subject are way more softly spoken and uncertain about the topics they hold expertise in, particularly in friendly company and in private, than political activism would like. From personal experience, to keep things vague since the topic is niche, I actually had to tone down a claim that I already thought was already very modest about whether [some human activity] would increase levels of [some dust], even if it was the best way to link research to real-world impacts. Climate change is the obvious one, where IPCC reports are incredibly modest compared to claims made by activists, to the point they might as well be speaking different languages. And to bang my usual drum, claims about "The Science" for covid restrictions often didn't exist at all in literature, or were contradicted by it. Even something like lab leaks will see surveys reported as Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19 when actually the survey findings was that said experts averaged 77% probability of zoonosis and 23% of lab leak, and only 25% of scientists reporting to be near certain that it was zoonosis, hardly a consensus.
As for this topic in particular, doctors who are inclined to cooperate and not "gatekeep" due to political pressure, and patients who are told to defect by lying to "gatekeepers" and get the drugs faster, is going to lead to disaster. Even if you're trying to implement standards in good faith here, they're just going to get instantly eroded.
There are definetly plenty of those with more mixed feelings. Experience shows that whenever there is an opportunity for scientific authoritarianism that gives scientists special status, whether with covid, climate change, or scientific marxism, plenty of them are willing to jump along. And they don't need to be all of them or even a majority, to be highly influential.
Calling something a science, and censor opposition as unscientific, are strong elements of modernity's fundamentalism. In a way that is convincing of plenty of scientists. Another possibility is those in charge to say that certain views are scientific truth and exclude from journals those who aren't going along.
Trained in a culture of peer science and trusting authority of the scientific clique, many are going to go along with it. Especially if they already have pro left wing biases.
This means that being a good scientist and doing science effectively is different and can in fact be opposite with the class of scientists and people called scientists, and their prejudices and preferences, which can show group think, and unwillingness to examine their conclusions.
It is the courtier phenomenon. Where power goes, there are always some people who go along with it. Another aspect of this can be that the media and people who belong in factions promoting group think have a benefit in associating science/scientists with particular views, and fostering a divide between them and then those who raise objections or oppose certain policies. Another facet of this are some edgier and more fantastical objections to claims on political charged issues that are focused upon over more substantive disagreements. For example
microchips
vs
Origin of covid. Lockdowns. Vaccine effectiveness.
Add to that censorship of dissent, and it would be a mistake to expect the people we have given the title scientists, or rational, to succeed in opposing this, any more an ideology given the title scientific will succeed at being scientific, just because it claims to be that, or to aspire to that.
More options
Context Copy link
Jack Turban, Steven Novella, and David Gorsky - the authors of the two reviews I linked - are all doctors and scientists. Turban specializes in trans care, Novella and Gorsky don't, but their entire claim to fame (such as it is) is being part of the Skeptic movement, and the entire point of their blog is to inform the public of the actual state of evidence, not to repeat the activist line. If they talk differently in friendly company and in private, that means they're deliberately misleading the public.
Maybe none of this should be surprising, but the system that exists today wouldn't survive, if any significant number of people internalized that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link